[(Continued from p.7)]
with Arafat.
Samir: Israel played a role in making Arafat what he is today. Who is Arafat, anyway? He's a nobody, and he can be easily defeated. Israel should take back the Palestinian areas. Believe me, I'm not the only one who thinks this way. After what I went through, it's my obligation to tell the truth about Arafat and his gang.
Israel Today: In other words, you would adopt a hard line against Arafat's regime?
Samir: Absolutely. Arafat always has been and still is a terrorist. But Israel is constantly mindful of protecting the innocent civilian population, the churches and mosques. And that's what will finally endanger Israel. Here speaks the Jewish heart! Israel wants to be the good guy in the fight but doesn't see how senseless this is because Arafat is going to continue the killing regardless.
Israel Today: But Arafat promised to prevent terrorist attacks when he signed the Oslo Agreements. He even got weapons for that very purpose from Yitzhak Rabin.
Samir: That was one of Israel's biggest errors. How could Israel have believed that he would fight terror with those weapons instead of fighting Israel?
Israel Today: In the areas under the Palestinian Authority, criticism of Arafat is increasing. Why does no one oust him?
Samir: Their fear of Arafat makes them think they have to throw stones at Jews, but they dare not overthrow him.
Israel Today: At the Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, Zionism was equated with racism. As a Moslem, how do you see this?
Samir: That's absolute nonsense. Arafat is a murderer and a dictator, yet he preaches to the whole world about human rights--and the world buys it. It's simply unbelievable.
Israel Today: Nevertheless, the international community seems to show more understanding for Arafat than for Israel.
Samir: They are simply blind. But it's partly Israel's fault. Shimon Peres thinks he can change the Arabs, and so he pulls Israel into a political trap. If I could trust anyone, it would only be Ariel Sharon.
"I have asked General [Anthony] Zinni to go to the region and remain in the region to. . . lend our strongest efforts to the establishment of a cease-fire," Secretary of State Colin Powell announced in his speech this week in Kentucky.
How important is the cease-fire?
Mr. Powell and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres would have preferred to forget about a cease-fire and jump straight into Israeli withdrawals and concessions. But President Bush saw things otherwise.
And so, apparently at the last moment, Secretary of State Powell succumbed to the pressure and added the critical line: "Get that cease-fire in place," Powell declared, "and other things can start to happen.
That's how important the cease-fire is. No cease-fire, no "other things." Powell said Zinni would "remain in the region," but Israel Television diplomatic correspondent Karen Neubach reported this evening that General Zinni is planning to stay here only two weeks to establish the cease-fire. And remember: right now Sharon is still talking about seven days of a real cease-fire--not seven hours--before the Tenet Plan goes into effect.
What will happen?
Well, Yasser Arafat could see the light and confiscate thousands of assault rifles, mortars, missiles, and other illegal weapons and hand them over to the CIA men for destruction (imagine the photo opportunities), destroy the smuggling tunnels, arrest the wanted terrorists and enforce a zero tolerance arrest policy towards anyone who violates the cease-fire.
Arafat could. That, after all, is why Rabin and Peres gave him so many assault rifles in the first place. And if Prime Minister Sharon's team is doing its homework, it is preparing a series of numerical compliance benchmarks (for example, weapons confiscation quotas) for the first meeting with General Zinni so that Palestinian compliance can be measured by results rather than the amorphous "efforts".
Arafat could comply. But I doubt Arafat will. That leaves two other possibilities:
The first possibility is that General Zinni follows the State Department tradition and declares a successful cease-fire regardless of what really happens on the ground. That may play well in Europe, but there are more than enough Americans who won't buy the claim that bullet holes and casualties can coexist with a cease-fire.
The second possibility is that General Zinni ignores President Bush's position that "other things can start to happen" only after a cease-fire, and reverts to the traditional approach of Arafat's apologists that Arafat can only be expected to enforce a cease-fire after more Israeli concessions--a series of Israeli "advance payments." This would squarely lay the blame on Israel for refusing to be generous enough to Arafat.
But isn't there yet another possibility?
[(Continued on p.9)]
Outpost - 8 - December 2001